 |
THE TELECARD AFFAIR: DIARY OF A MEDIA LYNCHING - FIRST EDITION
MISUSE OF POWER BY THE MEDIA
By John Young
This book details a particular case to demonstrate a general principle. The case is the misuse of Peter Reith’s Telecard and the extent of his responsibility. The principle is the misuse of power by dominant sections of the mass media.
In October 2000, the story broke about the misuse of Peter Reith’s government-funded Telecard. He had given his son the PIN number, and $50,000 of unauthorised calls had later been rung up. The story was headline news for over two weeks, with the then Workplace Relations Minister being severely condemned by editorial writers, political commentators, radio talkback hosts and others.
Gerard Charles maintains that the Telecard Affair ‘is not about parliamentary entitlements. It is not about MP’s rorts. It is not about the usual “snouts in the trough”. It is essentially about the media as the sharpest corrupting influence in our social and political life.’
He analyses in considerable detail the media coverage, pointing out the subtle, and not so subtle, techniques used against Reith. From the start he was presumed to be guilty of a serious offence: this was strongly implied in the first reports, and it was done through emphasis, suppression and innuendo.
Mr Charles argues that Reith transgressed guidelines – not laws. He had good intentions in giving his son the PIN number: so that his son could easily keep in touch. In this he showed himself a good father. The amount run up by his son was about $950 over five years. The $50,000 scam was done by others who, in an unknown way, got the PIN number. (Charles asks: why didn’t the media go all out to find these culprits?)
Compared with many other rorts in Australian society, he insists, the actions of Peter Reith are mild indeed. He had been wrongly singled out for behaviour that is very common. ‘In the context of the widespread larceny and fraud by employees of the companies they work for, Peter Reith’s actions do not rate a mention.’ The author suggests that those who feel indignant about Reith should ask themselves whether they themselves have sometimes been mildly dishonest, as in taking stationery or other goods belonging to their employer, or in making personal phone calls at the boss’s expense. ‘I have seen employees drink $200 worth of employer’s beer over a week!’
Such actions are objectively wrong, states Charles, and those guilty of them should correct their behaviour. ‘It is not for Peter Reith to be singled out nationally for what is, from this point of view, common immoral behaviour in the community.’
Gerard Charles has performed a valuable service in analysing the techniques used in this instance by so much of the media. However, it should be kept in mind that parliamentarians have a special responsibility to be strictly honest, for any dishonesty on their part tends to damage the common good of society more than comparable acts by the ordinary citizen. For this reason, the media does have a duty to focus on the misuse of the system by public figures. But in this case, as in numerous others, they have acted unjustly by blowing the case up out of all proportion to the reality.
As a major factor in the formation of public opinion, the media’s manipulative techniques need to be closely watched; for by doing so we can guard against them. Radically, the underlying philosophy of most of the mass media bosses is flawed, as is that of so many journalists; and it is through this philosophy that they interpret events. Their attitude to abortion is a particularly revealing example. Despite the sensationalism displayed so excessively elsewhere, they remain almost completely silent about the gruesome reality of cutting an unborn baby to pieces. How often have you seen the remains of an aborted baby on television?
Not only is there a wrong philosophy; a major driving force behind the presentation is the desire to boost sales, and to this end superficiality, partiality, appeal to prejudice and emotion are freely employed.
A disquieting fact is that journalists have the power to ruin a politician’s career or to bring down a political party, and some will unscrupulously use that power. A result is fear by our representatives to express what they really believe when it lacks the media’s imprimatur. Power used in that way is an attack on democracy.
Realising these things, Mr Charles has written a vigorous critique of media deceit. His honest anger is apparent, and adds force and interest to his presentation. In my opinion, though, it occasionally leads him to overstate his case and even, when criticising Col Allan and others, to become too personal. Whatever one’s opinion of that, the book is a very commendable achievement, of real value in assessing the mass media and guarding against the brainwashing to which we might otherwise fall victim.
 |